You are here

Article Text

Article menu
Download PDFPDF
Editorial
Shared decision-making and evidence-based medicine series: exploring contemporary challenges and future directions
  1. Paula Riganti1,
  2. Tammy C Hoffmann2
  1. 1 Family and Community Medicine Department, Hospital Italiano de Buenos Aires, Buenos Aires, Argentina
  2. 2 Institute for Evidence-Based Healthcare, Faculty of Health Sciences and Medicine, Bond University, Gold Coast, Queensland, Australia
  1. Correspondence to Dr Paula Riganti; rigantipaula{at}gmail.com

https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjebm-2024-113024

Statistics from Altmetric.com

    Request Permissions

    If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

    While there is consensus that shared decision-making should be an integral part of healthcare, there is ongoing debate about its philosophical and pragmatic aspects.

    Shared decision-making was initially conceived as a process that involved communicating evidence-based options to address a health problem, the pros and cons of each option, eliciting the patient’s preferences and reaching a shared decision about the next steps to handle the problem.1

    Some of the understanding of shared decision-making arises from research studies that have addressed specific questions and some occurs through iterative processes, which are often generated from debate and analysis articles. For a relatively young field, almost three decades since the publication of one of its foundation articles,1 both processes provide valuable opportunities for refinement and advances in understanding. Articles published in the shared decision-making series of BMJ evidence-based medicine highlight some of these issues.

    The nature and application of shared decision-making

    The nature and application of shared decision-making continue to be refined, particularly in situations where the approach is bound by ethical, professional or societal considerations. For example, some challenges include …

    View Full Text

    Footnotes

    • X @paula_riganti, @Tammy_Hoffmann

    • Contributors PR and TCH discussed ideas for the outline of the article. PR initiated the draft and both contributed to the writing and revisions. PR used AI to fix grammar and syntax errors (Grammarly) and brainstorm ideas for the title (ChatGPT).

    • Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

    • Competing interests PR is an associate editor at BMJ Evidence-Based Medicine.TCH is on the BMJ Evidence-Based Medicine Editorial Board.

    • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; internally peer reviewed.